Delhi HC judge pulls up Kejriwal for contempt, withdraws from excise case appeal

Delhi HC judge initiates contempt proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leaders, withdrawing from hearing the CBI's appeal in the excise policy case.

Delhi high court judge, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, on Thursday initiated contempt proceedings against former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, but withdrew from hearing both the contempt case as well as the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI’s) appeal against a trial court order discharging Kejriwal and others in the Delhi excise policy case.

Justice Sharma said that law did not permit a judge who has initiated contempt proceedings in relation to a matter to continue hearing that very matter. (Representative photo)

Justice Sharma said that the law did not permit a judge who has initiated contempt proceedings — in this case against Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, Durgesh Pathak, Sanjay Singh and Saurabh Bhardwaj over allegedly defamatory, contemptuous and vilifying material posted against the judge on social media – in relation to a matter to continue hearing that very matter.

But she clarified that her earlier April 20 order – refusing to recuse from the excise policy case – stands.

“In law, the judge who draws contempt proceedings cannot hear the main case. Recusal stands as it is. So on this note, I will list this matter (CBI’s appeal) before the chief justice so that the case can be heard by another bench and contempt proceedings can also be heard,” the justice said in her verdict, dictated for almost 30 minutes.

The unprecedented face-off began on February 27, when a trial court discharged Kejriwal and others in the excise policy case, prompting CBI to approach the high court. On March 9, justice Sharma stayed the trial court’s direction for departmental action against a CBI officer and deferred Enforcement Directorate (ED) proceedings. However, Kejriwal then sought to transfer the matter from her bench, which was rejected by chief justice DK Upadhyaya on March 13.

On April 5, Kejriwal, Sisodia and others sought justice Sharma’s recusal, which she dismissed on April 20. On April 27, Kejriwal informed the judge that he would boycott the proceedings. Following this, Sisodia and Pathak also wrote similar letters. On May 5, the court decided to appoint senior advocates as amicus curiae to represent the three leaders, but the matter was deferred on three occasions.

However, on Thursday, the judge proceeded to initiate contempt proceedings.

In her verdict, justice Sharma said that if CBI’s appeal against the February 27 discharge order were allowed to continue before her despite the initiation of contempt, the contemnors could later contend that she proceeded while harbouring personal grievance or bias against them.

“This court is of the opinion that the need to take cognisance of the acts complained of and contemptuous is far grave than the need to continue hearing this case. This case can be heard by any other bench, however the acts complained and directed against me and my family and the institutional judiciary would have been noticed and addressed by this court only. There is a clear danger in ignoring such conduct,” she said.

“If actions of the nature are permitted to pass without notice, it will send a message that courts can be subjected to organised public pressure, vilification campaign and false media narratives with the object of influencing judicial proceedings,” the judge said.

But she clarified that the reason for her order – transferring CBI’s appeal to some other court – was not because “demands for recusal or transfer were publicly raised”.

“This court clarifies that the present order should not be understood that this court is transferring the matter merely because demands for recusal or transfer were publicly raised. This court has already rejected the application seeking recusal by detailed judicial order and made its position clear and stands by it without even a slightest alteration.”

“However, subsequent events give rise to separate and independent issue concerning alleged criminal contempt committed openly and repeatedly in relation to this case…For a judge who is being targeted, it is a very lonely battle. People do not support you. It is a lonely battle for the judge and the family,” she said.

A detailed copy of the verdict is awaited.

Even as justice Sharma withdrew herself from hearing CBI’s appeal, Tushar Mehta urged the court to continue hearing it, asserting that the matter continues before the same court and that a “calculated SOP” had been adopted.

Mehta said the agency had no objection to the matter being heard either by justice Sharma or another bench, but expressed confidence that the discharge order would not withstand judicial scrutiny. Criticising the “theatrics at Raj Ghat” and invocation of Mahatma Gandhi, the law officer said the institution must frame guidelines to deal with such litigants and prevent narrative building exercises targeting the judiciary.

“No politician has stooped this low and this is for the first time that a political person has stooped this low,” he said.

In her ruling, the judge said that after she refused to recuse, Kejriwal adopted a course of “vilification” and “intimidation”.

The judge observed that instead of challenging the order before the Supreme Court, Kejriwal chose to issue a letter boycotting the proceedings and further released a video, in which, according to the court, he levelled false allegations against her that had already been adjudicated in the April 20 verdict.

She said that Kejriwal orchestrated a campaign of vilification by circulating and criticising the order on social media with the intent to ridicule the court. She said his actions sought to sow distrust among the general public against her, attribute political influence and lack of judicial independence to the court, and undermine its authority.

“Such assault through words and gestures, did not remain confined to the undersigned but was deliberately extended to the members of my family, my children who were wholly unconnected to the judicial proceedings and were dragged into insinuations,” the court said.

The judge further initiated contempt against Sanjay Singh for reposting the letters of Kejriwal communicating his decision to boycott the proceedings, and for allegedly stating that no hope of justice could be expected from her court, and the judge “who supports the ideology of RSS cannot render justice to leaders of a particular political party”.

“The statements are a clear attempt to publicly portray this court as being ideologically aligned and under pressure of a political party... and the assertion that this court will act according to such ideology just because this court has attended a public programme in this court’s opinion is clearly contemptuous,” she said.

The judge said that through his social media posts, Saurabh Bhardwaj had publicly questioned the integrity and impartiality of the court and raised doubts about an alleged relationship between justice Sharma and a political party.

“By publicly asking what relationship a sitting judge of a high court has with political party, in no manner is fair criticism and is contemptuous,” she said in the order.

Additional solicitor general SV Raju also said that the main matter (CBI’s appeal) can be heard by justice Sharma only, while the contempt proceedings can be heard by other bench.